Belgium Fines 300,000 Euros For Privacy Violating Fever Screening

By Charles Rollet, Published Apr 18, 2022, 08:35am EDT (Info+)

The Belgian government has fined two airports 300,000 euros (~$327,000) for violating the GDPR by using fever cameras, marking the first such fine in Europe.

IPVM Image

The systems lacked adequate signage, impact assessments, and legal justification, the Belgian data protection authority stated, emphasizing the sensitivity of health data "whether there is a health crisis or not".

Fever cameras usage surged in 2020 early in the pandemic but plunged nearly as quickly as problems with their effectiveness became clearer, e.g. UK Government Says Fever Cameras "Unsuitable", Temperature Screening Ineffective, CDC Study Shows and IPVM's study - IPVM's scientific study published by the Journal of Biomedical Optics shows systematic temperature screening manipulation.

For background on GDPR's impact on video surveillance, see GDPR For Video Surveillance Guide, GDPR Enforcement Against Video Surveillance - 79 Fines Analyzed and just a few months ago Irish City Fined $120,000+ for 400+ Camera System Violating GDPR.

In this report, IPVM examines these violations, feedback from authorities, and what this could mean for European users.

Fine *********

** ***** ***, *** ******* **** Protection ********* (** ***)*********** *** ***** ******************************* ***,*** ***** (~$***,***) *** ***,*** (~$108,000) ************ *** ******** *** ***** camera ****** ** **** *** ****.

IPVM Image

** **** ***** *** ******* ******* carrying *** *** ****** **,*** ***** (~$21,600). **** **** ** ** * total ** ***,*** ***** ** $***,*** in ***** ****** *****.

First ** ******

**** ** *** ***** **** **** for ***** ********* ** ******, ********* to ** **** ****** ** ************* from **** ********** ******** *** ***** reports. *** ******** ** *** ***'* litigation ****, ****** *******,********** "******* ***** *** ** ********* protection [...] ******* ** *** ** the ******* ** *** ****** ******":

IPVM Image

** ********** **** ********* **** **** hit **** ** *** ********, *** that **** **** *** ** ******** put ** ***** ******** ***** **** before. *******,privacy ***** *** ** ********* ********** *** *** ****** *** ******** ** ***********, and must therefore be respected. It is our duty as the Data Protection Authority to enforce them. Our decision today is all the more important as it can serve as a guide for possible processing of similar data, whether ** *** ** *** ******* ** *** ****** ******. [emphasis added]

******* *** * ******* ** ******** interpreting *** **** *** ***** ************. In ****, *************** ****** *********** ***** ** **** concerns. ** ****, ****** ********** ***** ******* **** "********** ************ with *** ****" **** **** ******** "are *** **** ***** **** **** been ********* ** * ******** ******** fever ********* ******".

Violation: **** *******

*** *** ***** **** ******** ******** the ****'******** ************** *** ****** *******, ***** **** detailed ** ******* *** ***** ************ *****. ****** ********* *******, *** *** ****** *** ***** signage **********:

*** **** **** *** *********** ***** is ******* ***by ***** ** ******* ******* is not ********* in any of means of communication (violation of Article 5.1a)

***legal ***** *** *** ********** is never ********* (violation of Article 13.1.c) nor the regulatory framework justifying the obligation to monitor body temperature (violation of Article 13.2.e)

***retention ****** ** *** ********** or the criteria used to determine these are not mentioned (violation of Article 13.2.a)

***right ** ***** * ********* with the DPA is also not ********* (violation of Article 13.2.d)

***purpose ** *** ********** is not ********* (violation of Article 13.1.c)

****** ******** ******** *******, *** *** ***** ******* ********** i.e. ** ****** ** ******** ******* periods *** *** ***** ** ***** a ********* **** *** ***.

Violation: ****, ******* *****

*** *** ***** **** ******** ****** to ****** **** **** ********** ****** Assessment ************. ***** *** ********** *** "systematic ********** ** * ******** ********** area ** * ***** *****" *** are ***** ** ** ********* ****** any ********, ********** **.

*******, *** ********* ******* ********* *** DPIA ***** ************** ***** *******' **********, ********* ******* 35.1. *********, *** ******** ******** ******* did *** ****** * **** *** one ** *** ***** ****** ******* because ** ********** ********* ******* *** low ** **** ****, ** *********** rejected ** *** ***.

*** ***'* ****************** ***** "********** *** ********** ** carrying *** * ******** *** ******** impact ********".

Violation: ** ***** ************* *** **********

**** ******** ******* ********* ***** ***** camera *** ** ****** ********* ****** ** ****** *** ******* ********* *********** *** travel ****** *****. *******, *** *** said *** ******** *** "*** * law" *** *** *** "*****" *** contradictory, **************** *** *** **** ***** ****** **** must ** ********* "********".

*********************** ********* *** ********' ******** ***********-****** efforts, ** **** ** **** ** not ***** ****** ** ********. *** it **** ***** **** *** ******** Union ******** ****** ****** *** *** European ****** *** ******* ********** *** Control "** *** ********* ****** **********' temperatures".

Integrator/Manufacturer **********

*** *** *** *** **** *** company ***** ********* *** ***** *******, instead ********* ** ** ** "*", nor *** ** ******* *** ***** of *** ****** ************. ** ****'* examination ****** ***** *** ***** *****************, *********** **** ****** ****** ******** companies ** *************, ******** ******* ** end-users.

******* *************** ***** ** *** ** *** airports' ********* ******* ******* * ********* camera ***** ****:

IPVM Image

**** ******* *** ** ********* ****** to ******* ** ***** ******* **** deployed ** ****** *******. ** **** not ******** * ********, ** ** do, ** **** ******.

Airports *** **** **** ******

*** ******** *********** ******* ******* "***** ** **** ** ******" while *** ********* ******* **** *** board ***** "******** ******* ** [** appeal] ** * ********* ******".

** ******* ** ***** ***** *********, the ******** ************* "**** *** ********* *********** ** good ***** ***** ** *** *********** and ********** ********* ** *** ****"; Charleroi ******* **** **** **** *** system *** ******* ********* *** *** "only ********" ** ******* ***** *********.

Impact ********

** *******, **** **** ***** ** clear **** ***** ** ********* ************ legal ************* *** ***** *********. ** the **** ** ******, **** **** has ** ********* ****** ***** **** country's **** ********** ********* ** ******* to ********* *** **** ** ** sees ***.

*******, *** **** ********** **** ***** screening**** ***** ******* **** *****.*** **** *** **** ******* **** people ** **** ********** ******* ***** camera *******, ******* ***-***** ** *** rest ** ****** ** ****.

****** ***, ***** ****** *** *** gone**** ***************** *** ****** ** *** ********, and **** **** ********** **** ******.

Comments (1)

******: ******* *************** ***** ** *** ** *** airports' ********* ******* ******* * ********* camera ***** ****:

IPVM Image

**** ******* *** ** ********* ****** to ******* ** ***** ******* **** deployed ** ****** *******. ** **** not ******** * ********, ** ** do, ** **** ******.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports